In re Appeal of U.S. Government
against William Thomas, Petitioner,


Comes now William Thomas, Petitioner in the above entitled action, to move this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus.

On August 3, 1987 I attempted to file a Petition For Writ of Mandamus. I believe that, in the interests of justice, it is necessary for the Circuit Court to resolve the issues raised by the petition for mandamus preliminarily to addressing any of the issues appellant has essayed to make in USA v. Thomas, D.C. App. No. 87-3043.

Unexperienced in the methods of litigation, initially I instinctively framed a document entitled Appellee William Thomas' Opposition To Appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal And Motion For Summary Affirmance. After completing that document it occured to me that appellant's Motion was simply a phantasmagorical attempt on the part of the U.S. Attorney to utilize the Circuit Court as a forum in which to argue issues which had been fully disposed of in the District Court.

On August 3, 1987, acting pro se, I attempted to file a Notice of Intent and a Petition For Writ Of Mandamus with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals under the heading and numbers of USA v. Thomas.

I believe that the issues posited in the petition for Mandamus should proceed any consideration of the Government's Motion For Summary Reversal.


Citing General Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Rule 7(j)(1), Ms. Johnson of the Appellate Court Clerk's Office stated that a petition for a Writ of Mandamus could not be filed in the pending appeal of USA v. Thomas, but that such a petition had to be filed as a separate matter. At that time Ms. Johnson refused to file the aforementioned documents.

Because the date for a response to appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal fell due on August 3, 1987, and because of Ms. Johnson's refusal to file my Petition For Writ Of Mandamus, I was forced to file my Opposition To Appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal lest appellant's motion go unopposed within the time limits set by the Rules of this Court.

I think that it is not unprecedented for courts to allow a mandamus to be piggybacked on an existing action. Unfortunately, due to the preceived urgency of filing for mandamus in as timely a fashion as possible, I have been unable to do the extensive research which might have enabled me to direct the Court's attention to a specific decision in support of this theory.

Under the principle of equal protection, and numerous precedents testifying to a long tradition of judicial tolerance toward the financally disadvantaged unschooled supplicant at bar, I believe that the Clerk's Office should not have refused to file my Motions, but should have realized that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed to avoid injustice, and assisted me in effecting the filing of those Motions. SEE, e.g. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972): Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817; Rich v. Zitney, 644 F.2d 41: see also, Sills v. Bureau of Prisons this


Circuit (1984).

My position is that the Motion For Summary Reversal represents a legal void, and that I have been prejudiced in, essentially being forced into filing an opposition to a motion which does not merit any reply, and that the Clerk's Office should have given assistance in the prior filing of a petition for mandamus, which seemed to me is the proper course of action under the circumstances.

Therefore I request this Court to entertain and resolve this petition for Writ of Mandamus before entertaining or resolving any other matters on the appeal in USA v. Thomas, despite the fact that an Opposition to Appellant's Motion was filed prior to the filing of the petition for Mandamus.

Respectfully submitted,

(W. Thomas)
William Thomas, petitioner, pro se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757


I, William Thomas, hereby certify that, this 4th day of August, 1987, I served a copy of the foregoing Petition of Writ of Mandamus, and Declaration in Support of Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, by hand delivering them to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court and requesting that it be placed in the U.S. Attorney's box for Mr. John D. Bates.

(signed W.Thomas)